kwallace.bsky.social
Energy & Climate, VP Policy at PosiGen, Nutmegger, Real Salt Lake, Utah State University, Colorado Mesa University.
64 posts
248 followers
732 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Look at the last part of the ITC section. The new PIS by end of 2027 requirement appears to only take effect for projects that haven’t commenced construction before the date of enactment.
comment in response to
post
Which section is this? And this is not the excise tax linked to FEOC recapture?
comment in response to
post
Curious on why TOU is shown as more risky for customers than a three part rate design? Is it just assuming the demand charge component is small enough to not drive a lot of variability in their month to month bill? Or assuming really high TOU differentials?
comment in response to
post
It’s structured as “No credit shall be allowed” if either of those are not met, meaning both need to be true in order to claim the credit.
comment in response to
post
I haven’t found the exact hour, but I assume it is in the morning because the solar contribution is still small. Just apparently after sunrise though.
comment in response to
post
Also the first time that ISO-NE expects the winter peak to shift to a day-time hour and that solar will help reduce it. The impact is small at first but each year into the 10-year forecast the % of nameplate capacity that is expected to reduce peak demand increases.
Very interesting times ahead
comment in response to
post
They apply a “policy-based” discount factor that increases up to 15% for 2030 and beyond. So their forecast before that discount is applied shows more steady deployment. Also tied to ITC post 2032 I would assume.
comment in response to
post
🔌💡
comment in response to
post
That’s a good point, had forgotten about that.
comment in response to
post
That isn’t MacMath…
comment in response to
post
I think some of those ratings were generous! But agree that no one shined last night at all.
comment in response to
post
Uhhhh insanity
comment in response to
post
So the DOJ guidance stated that agencies could not freeze funds based on the OMB memo or EOs, but this Notice says that DOJ doesn’t believe the EOs were enjoined by the TRO and therefore not impacted? That would explain the continuing freeze, but is a mess and at odds with their own guidance!
comment in response to
post
No it will not. These programs have not launched in any state yet. They were supposed to be launching throughout this year.
comment in response to
post
100% correct. It’s being used as justification by lawmakers even in places like New England where no data centers are even being built!
comment in response to
post
Yessssss!
comment in response to
post
Here it is: www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
comment in response to
post
I’m just thinking of all the states who just hired Solar for All staff and now have no idea whether they can continue to draw down funds…going to be an interesting few weeks on that front.